Posts by jraven

I wonder how many people are going to go for it if Bill Frist's plan outlined above is adopted and there's another 45 days to look at this plan, then it goes through. Would we have even thought about accepting something like this on Sept. 12, 2001? Some blogs are commenting on it too. Two different views: http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1140939869.shtml http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/02/dubai_dubya_rep.html

It's outrageous that Bush is getting away with this. Do you REALLY think that this was the most qualified person he could find? And now we have laura bush suggesting that those who criticize his choice are sexist. Do we all follow "trust me" because he is the leader or are there bigger issues involved. The best thing that could happen to the party is to clean out the bush operatives.

I'm amazed. Did I actually read someone suggest that if the Dems are registering more voters that Ashcroft needs to investigate? So now we're at a point where an opposition party can't try to sign voters up? What has HAPPENED to the Republican party I knew? I would assume we are still a democracy with two parties free to campaign. I saw nothing at all in that story that suggested there was anything except a get out the vote drive. Has our partisan desire overcome the very reason why people fight and die to defend our country -- elections?

The proper response is for Republicans to also work their tails off..and from what I read Karl Rove is doing just that to get a huge turnout on election day.

So by the comments above should the Democrats now say that it's undemocratic for Karl Rove to get Republican votes out?

I have to read this page again to make sure I read it right. I did think this was a democracy; any political science class talks about the importance of getting out the vote and registering voters. There is nothing illegal or wrong about it (unless you're talking about the 1960 vote in Chicago!)

This editorial is wishful thinking. Just read what our own Republican colleagues said after the debate or what Pat Buchanan said.

If Bush goes on the assumption he came out OK on this debate Kerry will clean his clock in the next two debates. The only way for him to win is to accept that he needs more prep and needs to control his irritation. This was NOT a good debate performance. PERIOD. Who wrote that editorial? Bob Shrum?

A mountain out of a molehill. He has urged Rumsfeld to resign (which Rumsfeld won't and GWB don't let him because he has been a great Defense Secretary). The comparison to 911 doesn't hold water. 911 was a different event, different situation, with a national bipartisan unity that had not been seen in this country for years. YES the best defense is a good OFFENSE and that is what this is all about -- trying to get off defense by going on offense. But it's a dumb offense and won't convince anyone remotely sitting on the fence. But it will provide some great possibilities for talk show hosts to posture and get off the subject of the real issues...including what policy changes are going to be needed to ensure we don't provide out enemies overseas ever again with such a great propaganda gift as we have with those prison photos.

That's right HILLARY is the issue here -- not the people who brought disgrace to their uniforms and stuck the President in this mess. We have to focus on treasonous HILLARY...not the people who made people get into a sex pyramid or who were responsible for the even worse materials that Sec Rumsfeld warned everyone might come out. He did quite well, actually. But the issue isn't him, or what was done to the prisoners, who in the chain of command knew this was going on. It's HILLARY who should be the focus. If Hillary and Bill Clinton died a lot of folks would have a very empty political agenda. (And I bet in the end HILLARY somehow got word out to the people at the prison to do this so it would discredit the administration.).

People have to separate a funny performance with their political favorites. I thought it was a SCREAM. I was impressed with Jackson, who was in fact a great mimick and a great comedienne. I did NOT turn it on expecting to like her at all. The Cheney impression was GREAT. Remember the GREAT Capitol Steps; you can find them online and must listen to their CDS. They blast Republicans and Democrats and do well doing corporate events. But the thing about them is: they started as Republican staffers in Congress and performed at Ken Starr's parties. Yet, they hit all sides and everyone loves them. A funny bit is a funny bit. People MUST lighten up in this country.

GREAT...Except for the setup: if you go back and look you'll see it is not true that the media is pushing liberal talk radio by its coverage. The fact is Rush got LOTS of coverage all over the country when he started because what he did and how he did it was RELATIVELY NEW. And he caught on. He just didn't catch on with people listening. He won viewers who got more viewers but he got LOTS of articles, some favorable and some not. False premise; great humor.

Let met get this straight: if I read it correctly Fox News just did a poll that shows Kerry ahead and someone suggests the pollster pushed them in another direction. So now Fox News pollsters are also trying to conspire to get a poll to show Kerry ahead. In other words, if a poll shows GWB ahead, it's great and let's tout it. If a poll (even a more trustworth one done by Fox) shows him behind, it MUST be that it was a push poll, biased or not accurate. It isn't true that "the only poll that counts on election day" -- the only poll that counts (with some) is the poll that shows our guy ahead. Thank God political consultants have it a bit differently (they look at polls where our candidate may be behind and try to fix it).

Let met get this straight: if I read it correctly Fox News just did a poll that shows Kerry ahead and someone suggests the pollster pushed them in another direction. So now Fox News pollsters are also trying to conspire to get a poll to show Kerry ahead. In other words, if a poll shows GWB ahead, it's great and let's tout it. If a poll (even a more trustworth one done by Fox) shows him behind, it MUST be that it was a push poll, biased or not accurate. It isn't true that "the only poll that counts on election day" -- the only poll that counts (with some) is the poll that shows our guy ahead. Thank God political consultants have it a bit differently (they look at polls where our candidate may be behind and try to fix it).

HUGE MISTAKE not having her testify. She is charismatic, intelligent, and a great spokeswoman for not only the administration's policies but the administration. So what do you now have? Our folks in Congress talking about perjury...but Rice won't even testify under oath. Clarke today saying let's declassify all of my previous tesimony and emails (see Google). The bottom line is: all this makes the administration look like it's trying to hide something and go after people who criticize it. Rice would blow them away and defuse this whole thing. If not a single national security advisor had ever testified publicaly under oath the administration could pull this off. I predict it's going to cost LOTS of swing votes and even more than what will already be lost if Clarke is prosectuted for perjury. If this was some boring, inarticulate, empty headed bureaucracy it'd be one thing. But one of the administration's most dynamic people, who has a lot of credibility that even Democrats can't eliminate, is being kept from testifying under oath...when her chief accuser has not only testified under oath but is saying all of his closed door testimony should be revealed and all of his emails. Except being on one side in this controversy, which side looks more OPEN to swing voters? Not the White House.

I love when someone writes "all's fair in love and war" -- so in other words we go after everyone using sleazy tactics that clearly are sleazy or there would be no trouble admitting it, right? Then if the other side does something we wrap ourselves in history and principle and say it's shocking. I guess I mistakenly thought us conservatives stood for PRINCIPLEs...but I'm wrong seeing the size of our budget, people sitting back on the new immigration amnesty, and going along with the prescription drug plan. Principle is out the window if we condone this. And if the it is confirmed and the Democrats use it, it's good for the country that it comes out and is stopped. I think the new rule is: whatever the president says is right because he's our man. Whatever the president does is right, because he's our man. If it violates the written and unwritten rules in our democracy, it's all right, because he's our man. If it goes totally against conservative philosphy, it's all right because he's our man. I wish there was a third party in this country that believed in principle since I increasingly think I'll stay home and microwave left over pizza on election day.